Seeing lots of reports saying Man City have taken legal action against the PL but I can't see anything on BBC or Sky Sports
Just had a look around. It's nothing to do with the FFP charges as people may have thought it was about. They are suing them over the Associated Party Transaction (APT) rules which were introduced when Saudi bought Newcastle. City are saying the rules stop clubs from inflating commercial deals with companies that have links to their owners. Basically saying they should be allowed to carry on having their owners disguised as other businesses injecting endless money into the club.
Pathetic. Really hope prem throw the book at them. Forget the law. How can it be morale that you can get your owners who have near on unlimited money just say we’re going to pay £500m a year for shirt sponsor when everyone else has to go out and get actual real companies who are sponsoring a 10th of that? What do city want? To be able to just spend all the money they want? They realise sport is meant to be entertainment. It’s not entertaining if one teams is so heavily backed and has such a huge unfair advantage that it’s a fire gone conclusion who wins every year.
Imo this is phase I of the city offensive to prevent the charges being heard They must be thinking they are going to be found guilty on the charges or they'd just let them be heard and shrug. They must expect to be expelled
Not going to lie I really dislike all this Don’t agree with FFP Think it’s stupid But rules are rules and have to be followed This might, just might get interesting if they go down expelling route (I think they should IF the allegations warrant it) The prem has to be seen to be clean - so this could be a tiny bit interesting
As we've said all along, they'll fight tooth and nail to have the whole process deemed illegal. Their continued attempts to obstruct proceedings are a clear admission of guilt.
Are some confusing this latest development as linked to the 115 charges? It isn't. City are suing over a different issue, ie the rules about owners being able to plough in money via associated businesses.
It's just the opening shots. Honestly, just wait and see - they'll try everything they can to get the charges pronounced illegal. How else do you think they'll fight it? It's obvious they're guilty as hell and they're definitely not going to say "Ok, it's a fair cop - we'll come quietly".
Maybe. I'm not sure getting the PL's back up beforehand is a wise move. Apparently, atm, 12 clubs are backing the PL and one club has submitted a witness statement in support of city. I wonder which one
to show the PL that the threat to Eufa to tie them in legal challenges for decades also applies to their fellow members of the PL company
It’s linked though. They’ve essentially admitted they’re guilty of funnelling money into the club through dodgy means because they weren’t allowed to do it in the open via outlandish sponsorship. Essentially they’ve said, we think it’s illegal you make us get fair market value for our products and because of that we feel like X of the charges that are included in the 115 should be dropped.
Just saw this picture when reading up on the story and noticed Pep’s hand. Waiting for his back hander?
Still linked - below from sky. The hearing into those charges is set for November but obviously, a lot of those charges are also to do with sponsorship deals, deals that were done with companies that are connected to the owners of Manchester City. "So, if Man City win this case, which starts next week, that would blow a big hole in the Premier League's case at the hearing in November about the 115 charges because Man City would have argued successfully next week that some of these rules are unlawful and incompatible with UK competition law
No idea who sly is. Fact is none of the charges relate to the rule they're challenging as it's a new rule and the charges are from a previous time period.
Ooops didn't get that at all. That quote seems clearly false to me. How can the challenging of a new rule have any impact on their charges of different rules? They're completely unrelated. All of the charges relate to a time period when this rule didn't exist.
